RXML parse error: No current scope. | <set eval="<date part=second>" variable="start_s">
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <set eval="<date part=minute>" variable="start_m">
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <set eval="<date part=hour>" variable="start_t">
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <set eval="<countdown seconds since iso=1997-12-01>" variable="surfer_time">
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <if variable="accept_index is 0"> | <if variable="accept_index is 0">
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <if variable="print is 1"> | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <if variable="print is 1"> | <if not="not" variable="print is 1"> | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">
-
>>
Mika Iisakkila:
Aland Islands, an autonomous part of Finland.
Eugene Holman:
an autonomous group of islands (capital: Mariehamn/Mariahamina) belonging
to Finland and situated between Sweden and Finland at the level of the
Stockholm and Turku archipelagos.
Although they are administered by Finland, the Åland Islands are virtually 100% Swedish speaking. A rather nasty crisis errupted between Sweden and Finland concerning their status in 1920, with the League of Nations eventually intervening and establishing the present framework.
Jari Partanen:
...it should be pointed out, that occupying parts of another country
can not be approved of (or does some war-maniac in here really believe,
that attacking the neighboring country should be allowed?).
If Finns like to describe the Swedish try to protect the (ethnically Swedish) Ålanders as an "attack" - are you then also accepting the description of the landing of Red and White troops on Åland, against the will of the people on Åland, as an attack?
My purpose has been to show that the support 1918 from the foreign state Sweden was careful and considerate, given the circumstances: 96% of the population voting for annexing to Sweden, and a violent civil war in Finland extending to the Åland islands.
The Finnish behavior during this crisis was a disappointment for the Swedes, no doubt. It's more than probable that many leading officials in Stockholm had had some ideas about "leading and helping" the newly liberated Finland - and of course gaining influence and other advantages. The remaining memory of the first real encounter with the independent Finland is as a mirror of what Finns often accuse the former Swedish "masters" for: Disrespect for agreements, disrespect for international laws and very limited willingness to compromises. Now, it must be noted that the view on Finland was not unaffected of the civil war and the disappointment in Sweden regarding the White terror and then mal-treatment of the prisonors of war.
Kari Yli-Kuha:
...the fact which is acceptable to (almost?) all sides in this
little "dispute" is that the Ålanders eventually got what they
wanted, perhaps even more: they got a clearly defined position
from the highest authority at the time (League of Nations),
they got autonomy instead of being just another Swedish "landskap"
with all the regular Swedish laws applied to them.
Jan Böhme:
But I still think that there seems to be a historical myth about the
Åland issue in Finland. Sweden _didn't_ want Åland in 1920, at least
not to the expense of any trouble with the government of Finland.
However, _at the time_ a VERY large majority of the Ålanders - was it
94% or 96%? - wanted to belong to Sweden. They were denied this, and
Sweden essentially didn't make any fuss. How can this be construed as
a Swedish expansionist aggression?
Johan Olofsson:
...my point is that the official Swedish policy after the Finnish civil
war was to prioritize the relations with the Finnish government on the
expense of the people on Åland, ...and on the expense of the defense
needs. (And then the Finns claim this point to be far too much glorifying
- I don't understand anything at all. :-)
I might question the attitude that an assembly of representatives for the municipalities on Åland is "only" a private discussion club. Couldn't some Finnish self-criticism be directed on such a try to devaluate the efforts made on Åland?
The will of the people on Åland was clearly expressed if a large majority had signed a "simple" petition.
Kari Yli-Kuha:
Åland had a very important strategic location in the crossing on two
seas - he who ruled Åland ruled the traffic in the Baltic sea. That's
why Russia wanted it in 1809 and built Bomarsund fortification -
the winners don't appreciate ethnic borders if there are security
issues involved. I don't know if the strategic situation counts
very much nowadays, but it did earlier, and perhaps that led to
a different decision compared to Schleswig-Holstein and demilitarization
of Åland, leaving it more or less a special case.
If we leave out all ethnic, language, or whatever questions, and look at the map of Åland from a purely geographical point of view, where should Åland logically belong? The natural border is between Åland and Sweden, IMO - this appears self-evident when you travel from Turku to Stockholm (on daylight, of course, when you see all the beatiful islands)
Johan Olofsson:
If I've understood the meaning of Jari Partanen, Osmo Ronkanen and
others right, then their point is that Sweden's naval visit on the
Åland islands in February/March 1918 must be more clearly condemned by
any reasonable modern man. This I do not understand. Given the
circumstances, I regard the actions by the Swedish government as
precisely as "careful" (or with another word: cowardly) as the
government itself claimed, and I question if it's not the actions by
the Finnish government of that time which could be criticised? Was
their handling of this case good for Finland in the long run, or was
it not? And along the same line one could ask: How should the Swedish
government have acted to get a more favorable result?
Kari Yli-Kuha:
...you stress the *Swedish* view on a delicate issue like Åland using
terms which glorify the "careful peace-loving unselfish neutrality
policy" of the Swedish government towards the Ålanders, when it
clearly was not only that - unselfish, I mean.
This, especially added with your proposed continuation "about the strategic interest Sweden could have had in the islands for the defense of Stockholm" clearly shows that there was a not-so-unselfish desire by the Swedish government to regain the control of Åland that was lost in 1809, using "the wish of the Ålanders" as a shield - or that's how it probably was perceived in Finland at the time.
Osmo Ronkanen:
Here parts of the country cannot just decide on what country they should
belong. According to the chapter 12 of the criminal law if 1889 that was
high treason punishable by 8 to 12 years or life. Well technically that
could have been applied to those who signed our declaration of
independence as well, but that is another matter.
...a part of a country has no legal right to split a country.
Antti Lahelma:
Åland, incidentally, wasn't yet a province during these events, but a
part of Åbo och Björneborgs Län as it had been for hundreds of years.
Johan Olofsson:
Do you request any minority in any country to first gain acceptance for
the borders by the government they wish to separate from - before they
can be acknowledged as a "province" and get the possibility to request
liberation? You haven't read Catch-22 recently, have you? :-)
Björn Vennström:
I really don't understand why the situation "is another matter" when the
Finns decided to become independent as compared to the people of Åland who
wanted to belong to Sweden?!? What is the argument for authorizing
parlamentarians with selfimposed and completely new Finnish nationality to
decide upon the nationality of ethnically quite distinct people located
far away from Helsinki and close to Sweden, geographically as well as
culturally? Maybe the "technicality" is that the members of the Finnish
parliament were not imprisoned by the goodnatured Russkies, whereas Julle
Sundblom and Calle Björkman were thrown i jail by less benevolent Finns?
:-)
Johan Olofsson:
In my personal eyes, it looks very much like Finnish sisu. (Which in my ears
often sounds very much as stubbornness. :-)) My suspicion is that neither the
Finland-Swedes nor the self confident Finnish speaking intellectuals and
academics believed the Swedish monarchy capable of any armed aggression. And
with all that national pride which excessed at the liberation - and with a
newly ended civil war - it was unthinkable to GIVE any tiny little piece of
land away.
Osmo Ronkanen:
Yes, it was unthinkable as what would have followed. Soviets could have
demanded Karelia as it was given to us in 1811. Giving land away is not
a good way to begin a nation. [a state?]
Osmo Ronkanen:
First we had been a nation since 1809. We had legally acknowledged
parliament and government (senate). Second we won the war of
independence. Third Bolshevist Russia and other countries acknowledged
our independence. Fourth the Russians had suppressed our constitutional
rights and thus lost any right to us.
Jan Böhme:
My point was that the League of Nations did something exceptional in
resolving the Åland question in 1920. In all other cases under its
jursidiction at the time, (not only Schleswig-Holstein, but the
Klagenfurt area in Austria, the Sopron area in Hungary, the Ostrava
area in Czechoslovakia, and so on) it went along with the expressed
wishes of the population in question. You have a little more personal
responsibility when make an exception than when you follow the general
rules.
...in the light of what was known in 1920, it wasn't certain that Finland would have turned out as nice as she, actually did. The evidence would the be, that things actually did go wrong in most of the other newly sovereign states. Since Finland had been autonomous for a century, the risk might have been perceived as less. On the other hand, the language conflict was by and large unresolved, and could have led to nasty developments.
Kari Yli-Kuha:
What language conflict? Newly independent states have to make and
apply new laws according to the new situation. One of the "questions"
(not conflicts...) to be solved was the contents of "kielilaki"
(language law) which was given in 1922. But, perhaps from a
monolingual Swedish point of view it can be seen as a "conflict"?
But, as you said, it was unresolved at the time of Åland dispute...
The decision was a clear compromise: Sweden didn't get what she wanted but neither did Finland - the real winners were the Olanders.
Jan Böhme:
Here you have touched the heart of the problem. Obviously many
Finlanders believe that the Åland conflict was a conflict between
Sweden and Finland about who should rule Åland. The Swedish view,
articulated by Johan, and to which I concur, is that it was a conflict
between the Åland population, very gingerly supported by the Swedes,
and the authority on mainland Finland.
The Ålanders probably _in the end_ got a better deal that they would have got had they acheived joining with Sweden. And you are probably right that fear of instability and the civil war was _one_ factor that lay behind the sentimens for secession from Finland. However, another major factor seems to have been a very strong committment to Åland as a unilingually Swedish region. There are two ways of achieving this: either you join Sweden, or you get very far-reaching guarantees to maintain the current linguistic status. Åland got the latter, and settled down quite happily.
But this mustn't confuse the original issue: the almost unanimous wish of the Ålanders was brushed aside. As the Ålander Johanes Salminen has remarked (or possibly quoted): "When twenty thousand people want to go their own way, you speak about separatism and treason. When three million people want to do it,, you play Finlandia."
Henrik Ernø:
Since Kari and Jari seems to agree on the wording "that Åland from all
points of international justice was considered part of Finland" maybe
one of them explain could why this is (was) so. Remember at the same time
another area: Slesvig Holsten (which unlike Åland had a strongly
ethnically mixed population (Danes, Frisians and Germans)) was
subject to particition along ethic lines after a plecibite, decided
and carried out by the League of Nations.
As far as I know Schleswig Holstein was recognised as part of the German empire as determined by all international laws.
To me it seems more logic if the outcome of two situations had been determined by following similar criteria, obviously they were not, why?
Kari Yli-Kuha:
Well, perhaps you should ask the League of Nations (rip) :-)
Jan Böhme:
I did, in fact. Or rather, I asked Philip Noel-Baker, who was
Britain's Permanent Representative at the time of the Åland question
(I _think_ that one should write Oland in English, really), when I met
him at the International Youth Science Forthnight in London in 1974.
Noel-Baker started by talking about how there also were Swedes in Mainland Finland etc. When challenged about the Åland referendum vis-à-vis the referendum in Schleswig-Holstein he said: "Of course it did matter that Germany was a vanquished power in the Great War, whereas Finland belonged to the victorious side", which shows very clearly how the Brits felt, although it is rather a special view of things. Yes, Finland won and Germany lost, but they were, if anything, allies during Finlands combined Civil War and War of Independence.
He also stated that the League of nations had declined pretty quickly and started succumbing to sabre-ratting already in the early 1930:s. When I suggested, that the first sabre-rattling to be succumbed to actually was that of the Finns during the Åland crisis, he replied: "Oh, no. It wasn't at all like that. But of course the sensible attitude of the Swedes made the desicion easier". In other words: It did matter that Finland took a more aggressive posture than Sweden during the Åland crisis.
> Åland had a very important strategic location in the crossing on two > seas - he who ruled Åland ruled the traffic in the Baltic sea. That's > why Russia wanted it in 1809 and built Bomarsund fortification - > the winners don't appreciate ethnic borders if there are security > issues involved. I don't know if the strategic situation counts > very much nowadays, but it did earlier, and perhaps that led to > a different decision compared to Schleswig-Holstein and demilitarization > of Åland, leaving it more or less a special case.
Strategy was one thing Philip Noel-Baker didn't mention.
But the Leage of Nations _did_ take an awful risk when it gave the islands to a newly formed nation rattling with the sabre. Finland _could_ have turned out a lot more naster than she really did.
Osmo Ronkanen:
We actually gave British our harbors in the fight against Bolsheviks.
Between 1918 and 1920 we were basically in war against Soviet Russia
though the fighting was not that common. However, Molotov argued in
peace negotiations in spring 1944 that Finland had three times attacked
the Soviet Union on little over 20 years. :-(
Henrik Ernø:
Your arguments seem to run along this line:
Åland was an integrated part of the bilingual Grand-duchy of Finland and therefore any separatist wishes among the Ålanders were legally un-justified. (This is an arguments which I think is totally irrelevant)
For me the main points are:
1) Was there a wish among the Ålanders at the time to unite with Sweden. If so:
2) Why were they never asked? We are after all not talking about the middle ages when Kings and emperors drew lines on a map but about a time were the principle of "national selfdetermination" was a scared principle for the League of Nations.
As far as I can see the only reason for the absence of a League of Nations imposed plebicite on the Ålands is that the Ålanders for some reason failed to win over the representatives of the LN.
And furthermore the Danes in Slesvig had a long tradition for resistence against germanification and for getting reunited with DK. A similar tradition may have been missing or been weaker among the Ålanders.
That combined with the fact that Germany was being punished after WWI by the winners may have been the real difference, making the League of Nations disregard the principles that Jari outlined in his post.
Johan Olofsson:
One _could_ be a bit evil and say that since Finland got the internationally
acknowledged supremacy over Åland, their interest in the islands have mostly
been to forget them and their people when it turned out they weren't easily
converted to Finns.
One can _also_ be less evil and say that it's quite understandable, all of it, and that Finland actually is famous for its superb treatment of the Swedish speaking minority - and the treatment of the demilitarized and self-ruling Åland is definitely not less laudable than the treatment of the Finland-Swedes.
Rolf Manne:
I have further been told that one reason why Åland was not transferred
to Sweden after the 1st world war was that that would have been bad
for the remaining Swedish-speaking minority in Finland.
Kari Yli-Kuha:
That would make sense. I (obviously) didn't live then but I could well
imagine what the feelings might have been at that time: Finland had
just gained independence taking advantage of the Russian revolution,
and had gone through a bloody and demolishing civil war. Had Sweden
claimed and annexed Åland - which historically and administratively
had been in the Finnish sphere of interests and had been part of Grand
Duchy of Finland already more than a hundred years - at the same time
it most likely would have been seen as an "imperialist Swedish
attempt" to take advantage of the tumultous situation in Finland.
This in turn could have had unpredictable consequences in the treatment of the Swedish minority by the Finnish majority, regardless of their "colour" (red/white).
[ A proposed wording for the Swedish part of the s.c.nordic faq: ] > 1920 the Åland parliament sent representatives to the Swedish > government, to remind about the wish to be connected to Sweden. The > parliamentarians from Åland were subsequently imprisoned in Finland, > accused for high treason, and the Swedish government continued it's > careful neutrality policy from the previous century, trying to > achieve best possible relations with its neighbors - practically > sacrificing the Åland people's wish.Jari Partanen:
The FAQ should be objective, and emotionally loaded expressions should be avoided.
What the FAQ should tell, is the one thing that was objective: the decision of the United League, that Åland from all points of international justice was considered part of Finland. The grounds of this decision, as United League presented them, should be told. And, instead of finding excuses for the behaviour of Sweden, it should be pointed out, that occupying parts of another country can not be approved of (or does some war-maniac in here really believe,¨ that attacking the neighboring country should be allowed?).
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <if variable="print is 1"> | <if variable="print is 1">
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <if variable="print is 1"> | <if not="not" variable="print is 1"> | <if not="not" variable="print is 1"> | <else>s.c.nordic debate on Åland -
>>
|
|||
|
|
|||
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <if variable="print is 1"> | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <if variable="print is 1"> | <if not="not" variable="print is 1">
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <insert variable="start_t">&scn_m0=
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <insert variable="start_m">&scn_s0=
RXML parse error: No current scope. | <insert variable="start_s">&scn_y=2024&scn_m=4&scn_d=20&scn_f=/nordic/scn/Aaland/Aaland.html&scn_r=">